Multiverse theory and god(s).

[That one dude...]

What is "all the way up" and "all the way down?"

'Turtles all the way down' refers to a story in which someone rejects science and holds to their belief that the world rests on the back of a turtle. When asked what the turtle stands on, they reply a larger turtle. When asked what the bottom turtle stands on, they say it's turtles all the way down.

Your question about whether or not a god could have a god seemed like a similar notion in reverse. Taking for granted that there is a god, who's to say if that god has a god who has a god who has a god...etc.

No, you have situations where it is an 'unknown'. Now, I personally do not subscribe to the 'every possibility', aspect of the original premise, but that's sort of besides the point

Every possibility is the entire point. If there's a mulltiverse, what possibility doesn't exist?

 

[Desert Snake]

Every possibility is the entire point. If there's a mulltiverse, what possibility doesn't exist?

That is the difference between something technically being an unknown, and considered 'false', until proven. That's just the way it is..
sort of similar thing going on in another thread; that being, there is a technical sense of 'unknown' that may not match our personal opinion,, or even how we personally designate things being unknown

 

[psychoslice]

I find the notion of god to be restricting. What if what we call "god" has a god?

My god imagine the fighting and the jealousy between them.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Okay, so multiverse theory states that there are infinite parallel universes where every possibility is a reality somewhere. As for the notion of god, would you say that there is one god that presides over each of these universes, or that each universe has it's own god unique to it? Would you say that some universes have gods while others do not, or that none of the universes have a god? Or is multiverse theory false? Thoughts?

Man made God, so universes with humans in would "have" Gods. What a depressing thought!

 

[rusra02]

Okay, so multiverse theory states that there are infinite parallel universes where every possibility is a reality somewhere. As for the notion of god, would you say that there is one god that presides over each of these universes, or that each universe has it's own god unique to it? Would you say that some universes have gods while others do not, or that none of the universes have a god? Or is multiverse theory false? Thoughts?

I would say the whole theory of multiverse has no basis in fact.

 

[Father Heathen]

I would say the whole theory of multiverse has no basis in fact.

You've never allowed that to get in the way of belief before.

 

[godnotgod]

"Think neither 'god' nor 'not-god'. "
Buddha

What does that do to your brain?

 

[godnotgod]

That is the difference between something technically being an unknown, and considered 'false', until proven. That's just the way it is..
sort of similar thing going on in another thread; that being, there is a technical sense of 'unknown' that may notj match our personal opinion,, or even how we personally designate things being unknown

Knowledge gained via the thinking mind is different than knowledge gained via the 'don't know' (intuitive) mind. The former is the product of thought; the latter the product of directly seeing, without thought, what is.

 

[Acim]

I find it not possible to fathom (specific instances of) multi-verse theory, but is kind of fun to think about for 10 or so seconds.

I think of the theory as false, but don't know. I would think one God still.

 

[Demonslayer]

The only reasonable answer is "We don't know."

This.

We do not know that a god presides "over" this universe or even if "god" is merely a human construct peculiar to our species or not

I've got a pretty good idea...

 

[YmirGF]

I've got a pretty good idea...

Yeah, me too.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Okay, so multiverse theory states that there are infinite parallel universes where every possibility is a reality somewhere. As for the notion of god, would you say that there is one god that presides over each of these universes, or that each universe has it's own god unique to it? Would you say that some universes have gods while others do not, or that none of the universes have a god? Or is multiverse theory false? Thoughts?

I agree with Krauss on this: 'if your theory requires an infinite probability machine, it's not entirely clear you even have a theory'

but I agree with Hawking also: 'that moron couldn't theorize his way out of a bowl of custard'

The watchmaker argument works as well as ever here, if I were forced to account for a watch without ID, I'd end up stuck with the same answer; infinite reality generator musta done it
In fact if you think about it, It's a pretty good test for determining that something had to be designed.

Besides, the FSM (flying spaghetti multiverse) has a glaring hole in the plot:

This infinite reality generator must be able to create every possible thing except anything that could ever be described as God which would spoil the whole point of the theory. It must be assumed to come equipped with a safety mechanism to prevent this from ever happening

i.e., in order for random chance to win out as the most probable explanation for our universe, any possible form of ID must first be utterly banished from the playing field to allow this to happen.

But ID has no need to make such restrictions on nature

 

[McBell]

The watchmaker argument works as well as ever here,

except that the watchmaker "argument" just plain does not flat out work outside the choir.

 

[godnotgod]

The watchmaker argument works as well as ever here, if I were forced to account for a watch without ID, I'd end up stuck with the same answer; infinite reality generator musta done it
In fact if you think about it, It's a pretty good test for determining that something had to be designed.

The problem with the watchmaker logic, is that a watch is an artefact, while The Universe is not. The Universe evolved, and is not a made thing, as a watch is. So while a designer/maker is required for a watch, it is not required for The Universe. Besides, all of this is predicated on the assumption that the material Universe is actually 'material'. Now, Quantum Physics is showing us that all of the mass of the atom is virtual in nature. IOW, matter is an illusion, just as the Hindus have told us for over 4000 years. Being an illusion, there is nothing that is 'made'. In reality, then, the Universe is a manifestation of something else; of some kind of consciousness behind the illusion, just as there is the actor behind the mask or persona of the character being played. This consciousness/power is 'playing' itself AS The Universe; playing all the parts simultaneously, including you and I. so you and I are that very thing behind the illusion we call 'reality'. It is that very thing that is the true Reality, all else being a mere play.

I am not calling that consciousness 'God', but you can if you wish. Via science, we do have the idea now of The Unified Field, from which all universes bubble up and manifest themselves. The question is whether that Unified Field is intelligent or not.

"The Universe is The Absolute, as seen through the glass of Time, Space, and Causation"
Vivekenanda

 

[godnotgod]

i.e., in order for random chance to win out as the most probable explanation for our universe, any possible form of ID must first be utterly banished from the playing field to allow this to happen.

But doesn't even random chance require consciousness for it to be random chance? And being random chance, doesn't that imply not-random chance? Actually, it would be neither random chance nor not-random chance.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

The problem with the watchmaker logic, is that a watch is an artefact, while The Universe is not. The Universe evolved, and is not a made thing, as a watch is.
So while a designer/maker is required for a watch, it is not required for The Universe.

Well that's what were trying to figure out here is it not?, was the universe 'made' through creative intelligence, purpose, or did it appear spontaneously through purely 'natural' processes.

There is no default answer, we have no frame of reference for how universes are 'usually' created do we? The multiverse lies inherently beyond scientific investigation, but we can reverse engineer ours, see what makes it tick, and we do have a frame of reference for what intelligent design v a purely natural action looks like.

Besides, all of this is predicated on the assumption that the material Universe is actually 'material'. Now, Quantum Physics is showing us that all of the mass of the atom is virtual in nature. IOW, matter is an illusion, just as the Hindus have told us for over 4000 years. Being an illusion, there is nothing that is 'made'. In reality, then, the Universe is a manifestation of something else; of some kind of consciousness behind the illusion, just as there is the actor behind the mask or persona of the character being played. This consciousness/power is 'playing' itself AS The Universe; playing all the parts simultaneously, including you and I. so you and I are that very thing behind the illusion we call 'reality'. It is that very thing that is the true Reality, all else being a mere play.

I'd agree with much of this, the functional structure of our universe; galaxies, solar systems, great fusion reactors creating complex elements needed for life.. did not self assemble from a handful of simple superficial laws and clumsy mass as once believed under classical physics. It is underwritten by much deeper highly specific detailed instructions describing exactly how to do these things.

So yes, it is the origins of the information, rather than what appears superficially as the physical 'stuff' of the universe, that is so difficult to account for by chance.
Just as the information detailed in the design of the watch, is what identifies it as an artifact, rather than say the same amount of gold as a nugget

I am not calling that consciousness 'God', but you can if you wish. Via science, we do have the idea now of The Unified Field, from which all universes bubble up and manifest themselves. The question is whether that Unified Field is intelligent or not.

Via science, we only know of one universe bubbling up so far... all others are philosophical speculation. And this one holds all the information, all the cards needed for a winning hand, life, even it's own consciousness to ponder itself with! by chance or design?

I'd say it's a question of probability. If you see a gambler play 5 royal flushes in a row, do you suspect chance or design behind this outcome?

"The Universe is The Absolute, as seen through the glass of Time, Space, and Causation"
Vivekenanda[/QUOTE]

 

[McBell]

i.e., in order for random chance to win out as the most probable explanation for our universe, any possible form of ID must first be utterly banished from the playing field to allow this to happen.

Actually, you have that backwards.
No big surprise, though.

See, in order for ANY form of ID to even make it to the table, there first needs be a reason to bring it to the table outside the irrational demands of the wishful thinking.
Good luck with that.

 

[Kent856]

Addressing the op. As many have already stated, it's currently not possible to know one way or another, but I guess you're not asking for proof you're asking for opinions.

So then, all I can say is that I wouldn't be surprised if a multiverse existed. Not to the extent of infinity though. I feel there is one God, who has existed indefinitely, (although this concept is stupid in reference to God as it created time in the first place) and everything physical at all was created at one point or another.

Also, i don't think you really need a multiverse to achieve parallel universes. If our own universe is infinite then as a rule you already have infinite possibility and another me exists somewhere except he got an A in maths.

The term "universe" also interests me. As far as I know, it means everything ever. So multiple universes on the same sheet of paper? Nope. What about two sheets of paper separated by "something"? We would just classify the sheets and then include them in our one universe. (sheets of paper as in planes of existence/spacetime

 

[godnotgod]

Well that's what were trying to figure out here is it not?, was the universe 'made' through creative intelligence, purpose, or did it appear spontaneously through purely 'natural' processes.

There is no default answer, we have no frame of reference for how universes are 'usually' created do we? The multiverse lies inherently beyond scientific investigation, but we can reverse engineer ours, see what makes it tick, and we do have a frame of reference for what intelligent design v a purely natural action looks like.

An artefact, such as a watch, is a man-made object. It requires thought to design and create, and construction/assembly proceeds in a systematically linear fashion. It requires a maker/designer for its existence. The idea that the universe was 'made' in a similar manner was taken from Judeo-Christianity. We see this in some of the old religious art, for example:

 

[godnotgod]

continued from above:

The Universe, OTOH, if the Big Bang Theory has any credibility, came into being via expansion, all at once. It cannot have been 'made', as it's coming into being did not occur in a linear fashion, as a watch does, requiring thought. After the BB, the Universe then evolved organically. When life appeared on Earth, it evolved biologically within the context of its environment. All things arise interdependently in the Universe, but a watch is only interdependent secondarily. While its internal parts are totally interdependent, it can function pretty much independently of its environment, save for extreme cold and heat, and other factors. It requires human intervention to continue to function, such as winding and battery replacement, cleaning and oiling.